"ESPN's Bonnie Bernsteinwas a guest on Mike and Mike in the Morning Wednesday, and when the subject turned to a high school basketball player who is considering playing professionally in Europe instead of going to college, Bernstein made an extremely odd comparison between American high school basketball players and Palestinian suicide bombers.

I've just reviewed the show in question and transcribed the full text of Bernstein's comments below.

It's sort of like, you know, and this isn't -- I'm prefacing this by saying this is in no way an analogy to sports because I know we live in a hypersensitive society -- but I remember a while ago I was reading an article in the New York Times about Palestinian suicide bombers and I just remember being struck by the notion that from the point of birth, people in Palestine are taught to think that dying in the name of God is a good thing.

They grow up wanting to be suicide bombers. So bringing it back to sports -- and again, I'm not making the comparison or the analogy -- if a young talented basketball player is being told at an early age that they are destined, it is a good thing to focus on basketball and not worry about what's going on in the classroom, why are any kids going to be worried about what's going on in the classroom?

Bernstein seemed to know that what she was saying would offend people, and sure enough, it did.

I think it was very inappropriate for Bonnie to use that racial stereotype of Palestinians as an example to back up her comments that NBA hopefuls "are programmed" to make it in the NBA the way Palestinian children are "programmed" to become suicide bombers ...

I don't need to explain that suicide bombers are not a race or ethnicity, or that there are 7 million Palestinians and have been only 50 suicide bombers over the past 15 years.

Obviously, Hanania is completely correct that Bernstein made an inappropriate comparison there. In fact, Bernstein seemed to realize the comparison she was making was inappropriate, which is why she hedged her comments "I'm not making the comparison," even though that was exactly what she was doing.

Why am I not surprised that the person making these comments happens to be a Jew ? Wow, when taking about professional basketball she finds a way to tie in Palestinians and make a racist remark. That's remarkable, these people are so hateful and they're taught to hate from a young age.

"The power elite plan for world dictatorship rests on the ability of psycho/social scientists to brainwash the human race into submission. It is believed that a "scientific dictatorship" can be constructed using these techniques on a global scale. The main key to their plans is our ignorance as a people. By their secret estimates, whenever the dumbing-down of America reaches a determined saturation point, resistance to their plans will crumble and Americans will voluntarily lie-down under the marching boots.

"And here is the problem. The theory that the human mind can be remade into anything the social scientists desire is based on the theory that external forces alone shape the mind. This is based on the book "Coming of Age in Samoa" by Margaret Mead. The book purported to document how adolescents in Samoa transitioned into adulthood without the usual angst and emotionality adolescents everywhere else do. The Samoan culture as described by mead was one of unbounded sexual license, promiscuous without any guilt. Thus, it was claimed, the rules of the culture one lived in was the cause of the stress and unhappiness teenagers show as they grow up. Humans were born with a blank mind, a "Tabla Rasa" on which the outside environment wrote everything that person would eventually become. One could therefore re-engineer humans by re-engineering the culture around them.

The book was hailed as a masterpiece by sociologists, who lionized Mead as a modern intellectual heroine. The book and the theory justified tinkering with every possible aspect of our lives in order to create better people. But while the theory sounds good, the hard reality is that no matter how the culture gets changed, people continue being people. In totally enforced gender-neutral environments, for the most part boys still act like boys and girls still act like girls.

As it turns out, Mead (and the world) was a victim of her own bad science. Mead went to Samoa intending to find proof that culture was the sole determinant of personality. There was a built-in bias to see things certain ways right from the start. Indeed in her early work, Mead had collected data that accurately showed Samoan adolescent life as similar to pretty much everywhere else. But that was not what Mead (and her sponsor Franz Boas) wanted to hear. So Mead took up with two young Samoan women, and started asking suggestive questions. The Samoan women, unaware what Mead would do with the stories, simply told Mead what Mead obviously wanted to hear. Mead, without any further checking, based her entire book on the stories told to her by the two young women.

Mead's book thus contain many errors, some of which are easily checked. Mead assumed that the Samoan culture was sexually promiscuous, based solely on the fact that the Hawaiian culture of the time was. But as anyone who has been to Samoa or knows Samoans can attest, their culture is a rigidly monogamous one.

Mead's supporters continue to defend her and their work, fort to admit that Mead was hoaxed and in turn hoaxed the world is to yank the foundations out from everything that sociology has claimed to accomplish for the last 80 years. Entire careers, even schools, were founded on the theory of cultural determinism, along with much of liberal political thought. To admit that Mead was wrong is to undermine the justification for a large part of the control government exerts over our lives.

"We don’t have guns. We don’t have banks. We don’t have storm-troopers and we don’t have a powerful media.

What we have is our convictions, our courage and our potential. We’ve done a lot of research and we’ve done a lot of talking and writing. What we have not done is taken the next step toward calculated revolution. A revolution always begins with ideas and ideals. These power the willing and cause the ranks to swell. Sometimes, often… the revolution becomes subverted and when the tables are turned the same people are still sitting there. This is simplistic but most of you have a grasp of the minutiae and some sense of history; real history.

A couple of entries ago I asked for icons and images that could be put on stickers and made available for public viewing. Of course, I would never presume to suggest or encourage anyone to actually become proactive in a way that was illegal according to the laws of the ruling junta of psychopaths who did the dirty deeds and who spread the ugly lies. Let’s just be hypothetical and trust to our individual imaginations. I cannot know what you might imagine. But we shall see.

Some of you have sent in prototypes, which I hope will obtain some further polish if needed and find their way to this blog again where they will be made available to those who might see some further use for them. The dissimilar image was sent in by ‘notamobster’ and the two similar images were sent in by ‘Ang’. Shouldn’t these inspire further efforts? Yes… I think they should.

This is a beginning and it is my hope that this will inspire other creations that will lead to a further exercise of the creative imagination. We hold these truths to be self-evident. We the people are the revolution. We are each of us ‘V’ for Vendetta. We are an army of subversive possibility. One can only imagine the effect of things like this appearing on the backs of bus seats and in subway cars; as bumper stickers on any and all conveyances, as fliers and posters, on store windows and bulletin boards, on military vehicles in Iraq, on the apartheid wall, in national parks, in government buildings, on park benches, as blog icons, as a growing, visible cry for justice and for truth. Only you can know the multiple, byzantine possibilities that wait upon your will.

We have at our disposal a myriad of opportunities to make a difference in every day. What should be the result of seeing these stickers? Of course, the stickers present possibilities but they should also inspire one to imagine other possibilities. There is a wealth of opportunity at our disposal.

Imagine the world awash in images that appear around every corner. Imagine how far beyond this your imagination can take you. Imagine and act. We have nothing to fear but the fearmongers themselves and we don’t have to fear them because their whole house of cards is built on lies.

Let us begin to see ourselves as agents of the truth. It is a country that lives in the mind, which desires to materialize in form and flesh. We are the citizens of that unseen country. We must manifest it out of the wreckage of this vicious fire sale in which we presently reside. We know who the bad guys are.

Begin here. Begin with this and then carry it on into new extrapolations. Every one of us is a leader. Every one of us is an insurgent and a freedom fighter. Every one of us is every one of us. Sticker the world for truth and freedom. Hunger for justice and act accordingly. We have not used our imaginations. We have believed ourselves to be helpless and alone. We cannot conceive of any effort we might make against the appearance of such a pervasive and powerful machine.

Please help with images. Please use your imaginations. Please make one small effort every day to bring the truth before the eyes of the world. We are the real power. We are not meant to be slaves of a conscienceless minority who drinks the blood of children and dances upon the bones of the dead. I will leave you with your imaginations and a quiet moment in which to inquire of yourself… Quo Vadis?

"The drumbeat for war with Iran is getting louder. Determined to ensure their success, by hook or by crook, the neoconservatives inside the administration, and their supporters in Israel, have launched a three-front campaign to provoke a confrontation with Tehran.

1. The Blackmail Option: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held a secret meeting recently at his home. Present were top cabinet officials and someone who has plenty of experience of the sort that interests the Israelis at the present moment: Aviam Sela, who headed up Operation Opera, the 1981 air strike against Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility. It was a bold and decisive blow against Israel's mortal enemy, which set the Iraqis back (though it drove them to create an underground program that actually was for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons by the time of the first Gulf War 10 years later). What Olmert wanted to know was whether it could be repeated in the case of Iran.

Yet no one should assume that Israel intends to act alone. An Israeli strike against Iran would be but a prelude to a much wider conflict, one that would invariably draw in Israel's one and only ally – us.

That's why the Israeli propaganda campaign directed at Iran has taken place on American terrain, aimed squarely at American public opinion and American lawmakers. Speaking at a recent AIPAC conference in Washington, Olmert declared:

"Israel will not tolerate the possibility of a nuclear Iran, and neither should any other country in the free world. The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means. International economic and political sanctions on Iran, as crucial as they may be, are only an initial step, and must be dramatically increased. … The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating."

There is no doubt in anyone's mind what "drastic" means, and this was underscored by his deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, who recently averred that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable."

The Israelis, as is well-known, cannot take out the widely dispersed Iranian target sites all by themselves. They need U.S. cruise missiles fired from our ships in the Persian Gulf to take out the entirety of Iran's nuclear assets. The whole point of this stratagem would be to embroil the U.S. in a conflict that would soon take on regional dimensions.

The resolution itself is typical AIPAC agitprop: at one point, it says that "the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reports that the Government of Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003 and that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as early as late 2009" – deftly snipping off the conclusion of the NIE that "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" and substituting the Israeli assessment that Iran will go nuclear by 2009, which the National Intelligence Council concluded was "very unlikely."

The resolution, while containing boilerplate language to the effect that "nothing in this resolution will be construed as authorizing military action," goes on to demand "that the president lead an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the pressure on the Government of Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, among other measures, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran."

It is typical Orwellian Newspeak: no military action is "authorized," yet what else would a blockade involve but the use of American military assets to enforce it? This means war – and don't think for a moment that the Israel lobby hasn't got the power to push this war resolution through Congress.

3. The Infiltration Option: Congress has already approved $400 million to destabilize the Iranian regime, the first phase of the administration's war moves against Tehran, and U.S. special-ops teams have been busy. The number of violent incidents inside Iran has recentlyskyrocketed, and there is little doubt that the U.S. is funding and otherwise assisting terrorist activities within that country. As Seymour Hersh reports:

"The scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials."

The idea of the infiltration option is to coordinate with various minority ethnic groups, such as the Ahwazis and the Baluchis – Sunni fundamentalists of the al-Qaeda stripe who despise the Iranian Shi'ites as heretics – as well as the idiosyncratic Marxist cultists of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). The goal is not just to gather intelligence, but also to provoke the regime into initiating a violent reaction. This would increase the likelihood of direct U.S. involvement, as the fighting spills over Iran's borders into Iraq and/or Pakistan.

All three options, working in tandem over the next few months, will be more than enough to provoke the Iranians into some sort of response, which can then be used as a pretext for the Americans to attack.

As in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there is considerable opposition gathering within U.S. military and diplomatic circles. Hersh reports on a meeting between Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Democratic caucus in the Senate, during which

"Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush administration staged a preemptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, 'We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.' Gates's comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Gates's answer, the senator told me, was 'Let's just say that I'm here speaking for myself.'"

The realists in the administration – foremost among them, the top military brass – know what a disaster war with Iran would soon turn into. It would be an act of self-immolation unprecedented since Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Yet the power of the Israel lobby is formidable, the realists have little political clout, and there isn't much time to stop the momentum for war.

As craven as Barack Obama's recent performance before AIPAC was, the Lobby knows that, as president, he'll be unlikely to launch what would amount to World War III. Shmuel Bar, a former top intelligence officer and Israeli government official who now works as an analyst, recently spoke to the British Guardian:

"What is clear is that the push inside the Israeli establishment for a strike is not being driven by the timetable of Iran's mastery of the technical aspects alone, but by geopolitical considerations. That point was reinforced by Bar last week when he identified a window of opportunity for a strike on Iran – ahead of the November presidential election in the United States which could see Barack Obama take power, and possibly engage with Syria and Iran. An Obama presidency would close that window for Israel, says Bar."

The window of opportunity for the neocons to launch an attack will stay open only as long as this president is in the White House, and the Israelis know it. That's why their propaganda campaign has recently been ratcheted up to new heights of hysteria, and why they're pulling in all their chits in Congress.

The clock is ticking, and the Lobby is moving fast. Will – can – the antiwar movement move with equal speed?

There seems little doubt who and what is motivating this new push for war. Even as "moderate" a commentator as Joe Klein knows that the Lobby is up to its old tricks again, and he is being pilloried for telling the truth. In his Time column, Klein wrote:

"The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked – still smacks – of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives – people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary – plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel."

As I have pointed out in this space many times, the great majority of American Jews oppose this administration's crazed foreign policy, and there would be no antiwar movement of any consequence without their active support. Yet it cannot be denied – as I wrote before a single shot had been fired – that the Iraq war was launched, as Klein notes, to make the Middle East safer for Israel, just as the current push for "regime change" in Iran is energized by the same motive.

This is what it means to be an empire: foreign lobbyists and satraps gather 'round the imperial throne, scheming and plotting to gain the emperor's favor and the privilege of using his praetorians as an instrument to advance their own ends. If it wasn't the Israelis, it would be someone else – perhaps the Brits, as in the two previous worldwars. In any case, until and unless we make real changes in our foreign policy – fundamental changes – we'll never get out of this box, and war clouds will loom large on our horizon well into the foreseeable future.

In the meantime, however, we have to make a start, and that means defeating Senate Resolution 580 and House Resolution 362, in what would be a rare setback for the Lobby. Go for it!

"Senator Joe Lieberman has echoed a national talking point by promising that the new president will be welcomed by a terror attack in 2009, continuing a disturbing trend of talking heads anxiously relishing a catastrophic pretext to reinvigorate the Neo-Con agenda.

"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman, I-Conn., told Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."

Lieberman's comments follow last month's Washington Times report concerning a warning from national intelligence spooks that, "Islamic terrorists will attempt to exploit the transition in power by planning an attack on America."

Let us swiftly dismantle the naive pretense that a terror attack is a negative thing for a new president - both Clinton and Bush exploited terror in America to realize preconceived domestic and geopolitical agendas.

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was an inside job from start to finish - it did not come as a "surprise" to the U.S. government since they ran the entire operation, having cooked the bomb for the "Islamic terrorists" that they had groomed for the attack.

In 1993 the FBI planted their informant, Emad A. Salem, within a radical Arab group in New York led by Ramzi Yousef. Salem was ordered to encourage the group to carry out a bombing targeting the World Trade Center's twin towers. Under the illusion that the project was a sting operation, Salem asked the FBI for harmless dummy explosives which he would use to assemble the bomb and then pass on to the group. At this point the FBI cut Salem out of the loop and provided the group with real explosives, leading to the attack on February 26 that killed six and injured over a thousand people. The FBI's failure to prevent the bombing was reported on by the New York Times in October 1993.

The attack, coupled with the Oklahoma City bombing less than two years later, enabled Bill Clinton to whip up support for the passage of a plethora of unconstitutional legislation, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the Brady Bill, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and a $100 million dollar grant to Israel for "counter-terrorism" purposes.

By the time Clinton left office, the Patriot movement - which before the OKC bombing had grown in leaps and bounds, spurred on by the atrocities committed by the federal government at Waco - was effectively dead.

Few need reminding of George W. Bush's agenda before he took office. The ideological framework that would shape his presidency - encapsulated by the goals of the Neo-Con Project For a New American Century - required a "new Pearl Harbor" to get things started, which is exactly what they received on September 11, 2001.

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade---if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency," Bush told Herskowitz.

The pattern is clear - each time a new President takes office they have a mandate to act as a torch bearer for the same agenda - domestic repression and foreign invasion. A terror attack provides the perfect pretext to realize those goals.

Whether it be Barack Obama or John McCain, we can expect a new crisis to conveniently arrive shortly after they take office, enabling them to pursue the same tyrannical blueprint followed by their predecessors."

On June 24, 2008 on the Alex Jones Show, a nationally syndicated news/talk program that also has a huge Internet audience, retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern discussed the potential for a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran before the Bush Administration leaves office next year.

Former morning briefer for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., McGovern noted that Iran is carefully avoiding any actions that could be interpreted as provocations for an attack: hence justification for an attack would require a pretext manufactured by the Administration and/or the Israelis.

In an editorial published by AntiWar.com on June 20, McGovern had brought our attention to a little-noticed statement by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert about a June 4 White House meeting with President George W. Bush:

"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."1

McGovern concluded that a perfect storm seems to be gathering in late summer or early fall, when the Bush Administration and allies in Israel will launch attacks against Iran.

There is reason to hypothesize that the requisite staged provocation for an attack on Iran has already been planned and is scheduled to take place in Denver at the time of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in late August.

This hypothesis stems from information from insider geopolitical specialists who are disgusted by the ruthless onslaught of fascism in the United States and are fighting it at great risk from behind the scenes. It is also supported by circumstantial evidence, including “anti-terrorism” drills held in Denver throughout the week of June 16, 2008.

The weeklong “realistic urban environment” drills conducted by the U.S. Special Operations Command, which coordinates all the military branches’ crack commando units from Army Rangers to Navy SEALS, featured unmarked black helicopters conducting maneuvers and landings as well as the loading and unloading of Special Operations forces at multiple locations in the city.

Two major staging grounds placed under military control with the blessing of the city were a large abandoned rubber factory on the south side of Denver and the former Children’s Hospital at Downey and 21st Street. A Halliburton truck was observed with the designation 'Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team' (CST), a team sporting a number of large SUVs carrying sophisticated communication equipment.

A special Department of Defense anti-terrorism unit based in Wyoming, CST was present in Denver in alignment with the scenario posited by the drills: the detonation of a weapon of mass destruction, such as a radioactive dirty bomb, that would kill 20,000 people.2

Special Operations Command spokesman Lt. Steve Ruh said the drills were a culmination of a two-week training exercise that was part of the “war on terror.” Denver mayor John Hickenlooper denied that the exercises were security preparations for the DNC in August.

However, the following arguments could be posed for a connection with the DNC, not only as security preparations but also as dry run preparations for detonation of a contrived terrorist dirty bomb somewhere in the city.

In other major false flag “terrorist” events, such as the 9/11 attacks on U.S. targets in 2001 and the “7/7” subway bombings in London in 2005, prior terrorism drills were held that were similar in key aspects to the later false flag events themselves.

Dry run preparations for a dirty bomb would provide valuable experience regarding implementing that particular event in that particular urban location (such as familiarity with the city layout, including that of subways and hospitals).

Anti-terrorism, anti-protest, and other security measures would already be in place at the time of the Convention, including detention camps and an array of armed personnel and weaponry. The choice of a presidential campaign convention as the occasion for the dirty bomb would readily lend itself to official maligning of the perpetrators for committing horrifying violence during an event so symbolic of the American democratic tradition. With Iran as the proclaimed culprit, the propaganda machine could thus go into high gear in its efforts to galvanize support for war.

It would also lend itself to scare tactics capitalizing on the terrorists’ ability to breach the massive security measures surrounding such an event. And with Iran as the declared perpetrator, official spin regarding its puported nuclear ambitions would gain new credibility.

Finally, a staged “Iranian” dirty bomb detonated to coincide with the DNC in August could be expected to revitalize support for the Bush Administration’s post 9/11 anti-terrorism matrix and for the neocon ideology that has infused it.

For many months, a number of political analysts have feared that elements in the Bush Administration have been planning major false flag “terrorism” such as the detonation of a radioactive “dirty bomb” in a U.S. city, terrorism on a scale that would justify cancellation of the coming presidential election, a declaration of martial law, and refusal to relinquish power to a successor administration.

In May 2007, Bush issued National Security Directive No. 51 giving himself, on his own initiative, the power to control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches -- all functions of government -- in the event of a catastrophic national emergency. National emergency is defined elastically as “any incident, regardless of location” that would “damage or disrupt” the U.S. population, economy, or government functions.

There is no language in Directive 51 that requires Bush to obtain the consent of Congress before he seizes such power, nor is there an acknowledgement that under existing law he is already required to do just that. Directive 51 simply ignores the existing National Emergencies Act, and in so doing Bush authorizes himself - or if he is disabled, the Vice President - to control all functions of government for the duration of the emergency “and afterward.”

A combination of official pronouncements, expansion of executive powers, and Congressional trends has led many analysts to fear that another self-serving problem-reaction-solution scenario is indeed in the offing, in which as a response to the reaction of widespread public fear the solution of martial law would be offered and welcomed.

Under Presidential Directive 51, martial law in the U.S. would automatically extend to Canada and Mexico as a result of advances, achieved largely through stealth and disinformation, in implementing a North American Union (NAU). Under martial law, the U.S. President would assume authoritarian control over the three governmental functions—executive, legislative and judicial—for all three nations.

Extending martial law even more globally could be facilitated by staging additional events entailing further massive loss of life.

If these events ensued within days of the first instance of violence and death, they would preclude any real recovery of the populace from the original trauma, and indeed they would escalate it to the degree necessary for acceptance of worldwide martial governance.

A warning of just such a scenario was given in 1974 by Dr. Wernher von Braun, who stated that the dark forces controlling world wealth and political power had over a third of a century ago planned a series of escalating false flag events as a means for acquiring total global control.3

This broader sort of speculation is in fact just that. But our minimal hypothesis of upcoming false flag terrorism in Denver is supported in its general themes by the informed analysis of astute thinkers in the public arena, and in its more specific expectations by the insider leaks of “White Hat” patriots. A parallel situation occurred six months ago when sources within the U.S. intelligence community leaked a neocon plot to assassinate Presidential candidate Ron Paul to freedom fighter and intrepid researcher Daniel Estulin.

"Best-selling author and Bilderberg sleuth Daniel Estulin says he has received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community which suggests that people from the highest levels of the U.S. government are considering an assassination attempt against Congressman Ron Paul because they are threatened by his burgeoning popularity.

"Estulin, whose information has unfortunately proven very accurate in the past, went public with the bombshell news during an appearance on The Alex Jones Show today….

"Estulin, an award winning investigative journalist, said that he was given the information from a source that has been reliable for over a decade in providing accurate projections of future events based on what the elite were discussing in their own circles…

"The Ron Paul phenomenon has galvanized an entire nation," said Estulin, adding that both the people who discovered the plot and its potential protagonists are terrified at the consequences of what such an action will be because of the difficulty in judging just how severely the general public will react."4

In a second article on December 21, 2007, Watson revealed additional information:

"Appearing [again] on The Alex Jones Show, Estulin said that his sources for the information were real patriots who love America and are desperate to see the truth get out, but that he always took the precaution of getting verification from more than one individual on each piece of information he releases.

"What I said about Ron Paul last week came from two different people who don't know each other," said Estulin, adding that his source had in turn got the information from sources within the Neo-Con camp and that it was individuals from within the Neo-Con camp that are considering what would happen if Ron Paul was assassinated."5

Estulin publicized the plot at length on the Alex Jones radio and television venues, which resulted in its massive exposure across the Internet and in giving its perpetrators the answer they had been seeking regarding probable public reaction to an assassination of Ron Paul.

There are wonderful lessons here for the current case of insider concern about a horrific DNC false flag disaster that could claim 20,000 lives. Even if this concern has only a small probability of manifesting, it is nevertheless vital to disseminate it widely with a view to thwarting the plot and all of its attendant horrors.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday.

The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centers on a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by U.S. law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees.

"The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money."

Hersh has written previously about possible administration plans to go to war to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including an April 2006 article in the New Yorker that suggested regime change in Iran, whether by diplomatic or military means, was Bush's ultimate goal.

Funding for the covert escalation, for which Bush requested up to $400 million, was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. U.S. Special Operations Forces have been conducting crossborder operations from southern Iraq since last year, the article said.

These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in Bush's war on terrorism, who may be captured or killed, according to the article.

OUTRAGEOUS!!

Isn't that a VIOLATION of INTERNATIONAL LAW?

The U.S. ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told CNN's "Late Edition" he had not read the article, but denied the allegations of cross-border operations.

"I'll tell you flatly that U.S. forces are not operating across the Iraqi border into Iran, in the south or anywhere else," he said in an interview from Baghdad on Sunday.

O.K., liar!

The scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which include the Central Intelligence Agency, have now been significantly expanded, the New Yorker article said, citing current and former officials.

This is the SAME SHIT they did before INVADING IRAQ, folks!

Many of these activities are not specified in the new finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature, it said.

Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to al Qaeda.

Yes, the U.S. is SUPPORTING "Al-CIA-Duhs" aganist Iran!

The article said U.S. support for the dissident groups could prompt a violent crackdown by Iran, which could give the Bush administration a reason to intervene.

None of the Democratic leaders in Congress would comment on the finding, the article said. The White House, which has repeatedly denied preparing for military action against Iran, and the CIA also declined comment.

Heard the same thing before Iraq!

The United States is leading international efforts to rein in Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, although Washington concedes Iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian uses."

Israel is mobilizing its supporters in america (and in europe) to push the bush administration into yet another proxy zionist war – this time against iran. In america, the political pressure for a war against iran is coming overwhelmingly from one sector of american society: the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators, the zionists in the jewish dominated american media, the israel lobby, the zionist-owned congress, and the ziocons who have infiltrated the bush administration. The proposed war against iran is the most blatant example of a war concocted, planned, and marketed, by zionists around the world solely for the benefit of the jews-only state in palestine. It is not the american oil industry which is leading the charge for such a war, "Except for the Israeli lobby in the US and its grass root Jewish American supporters and allies among the Presidents of the Major Jewish organizations there are no other organized lobbies pressuring for or against this war. The ritualistic denunciations of "Big Oil" whenever there is a Middle East conflict involving the US is in this instance a totally bogus issue, lacking any substance. All the evidence is to the contrary – big oil is opposed to any conflicts, which will upset their first major entry into Middle Eastern oil fields since they were nationalized in the 1970’s." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’). It is not the american military which wants such a war. It is not american economists wishing to promote american economic interests around the world. It is the zionists living in america – parasites who have colonized the american political system. Their sole concern is to promote policies which benefit the jews-only state in palestine no matter how damaging this might be to america’s economic and national interests.

The Commentators who believe the Jewish Lobby is Primarily Responsible for Stirring up a War against Iran

Eric Margolis:

"The growing clamour over Iran's nuclear intentions, with rumblings about air strikes against Iran's reactors in the fall, may prove to be a part of just such a manufactured crisis. Remember, these latest fevered claims about Iran come from the same "reliable intelligence sources" and neo-conservative hawks who insisted Iraq had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that threatened the U.S., with intimate links to al-Qaida." (Eric Margolis ‘Those who deceived America into attacking Iraq may be at it again’).

James Petras:

"Israel’s political and military leadership have repeatedly and openly declared their preparation to militarily attack Iran in the immediate future. Their influential supporters in the US have made Israel’s war policy the number one priority in their efforts to secure Presidential and Congressional backing. The arguments put forth by the Israeli government and echoed by their followers in the US regarding Iran’s nuclear threat are without substance or fact and have aroused opposition and misgivings throughout the world, among European governments, international agencies, among most US military leaders and the public, the world oil industry and even among sectors of the Bush Administration. An Israeli air and commando attack on Iran will have catastrophic military consequences for US forces and severe loss of human life in Iraq, most likely ignite political and military violence against pro-US Arab-Muslim regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, perhaps leading to their overthrow. Without a doubt Israeli war preparations are the greatest immediate threat to world peace and political stability." (James Petras ‘Israel's War with Iran’).

William S. Lind:

"In Washington, the same brilliant crowd who said invading Iraq would be a cakewalk is still in power. While a few prominent neocons have left the limelight, others remain highly influential behind the scenes. For them, the question is not whether to attack Iran (and Syria), but when. Their answer will be the same as Israel's." (William S. Lind ‘The Next Act’).

Jeffrey Blankfort:

"Why is the neocons/American Jewish establishment the only sector in US society pushing for a confrontation with Iran? And why with Iraq before that?" (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘War within Range? Another Neocon beats the drums for war and says it will happen in 10 weeks’); "And right at this moment, the only segment of the American society that is pushing the US administration to confront Iran, happens to be the Jewish establishment or the lobby, whose main focus for months – groups like AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, but also other Jewish organizations - has been to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’); "The neo-cons who are almost exclusively Jewish and the Israel lobby got the US into the war in Iraq. The father of the President, the first George Bush was against it, the oil companies were against it. And despite the fact that the war is going so badly, they did not have to pay a political price because only a few isolated columnists, and but a few from the left, and none representing the anti-war movement in this country, wrote articles about that. So now, the same forces are now pushing for a US confrontation with Iran ..." (Jeffrey Blankfort quoted in Réseau Voltaire ‘The Chomsky/Blankfort Polemic’).

Edward S. Herman:

"The (american jewish) lobby and its representatives in the Bush administration were eager supporters of the attack on Iraq, and they are now fighting energetically for war against Iran- in fact the lobby is the only sector of society calling for a confrontation with Iran and it is already engaged in a major campaign on Bush and Congress to get the United States to take action." (Edward S. Herman ‘Western Approval for Long-Term Israeli Ethnic Cleansing’ Z Magazine March 2006).

Antony Loewenstein:

"Sadly, Israel and many of its supporters are at the forefront of demonising Iran and advocating military action. Not unlike Iraq, Iran is a perceived threat to the Jewish state and must therefore be obliterated. Israeli generals and politicians know Iran is not a serious threat but they never underestimate the political need to create a regional bogeyman to rally an ever-fearful Israeli population." (Antony Loewenstein ‘An Aussie Perspective: Spinning Us to War with Iran’).

Zionist attempts to whip america into a war against iran have a long history. There have been a succession of anti-iran propaganda campaigns launched by america’s zionist dominated establishment. There is virtually no opposition to such a war amongst america’s jewish community.

1990s

Israel the jewish sayanim network of mossad collaborators in america, the jewish dominated media in america, the israel lobby in america, the zionist-owned politicians in congress, and the ziocons in the clinton administration, started their political attack on iran in the early 1990s. In 1991, almost immediately after saddam hussein had been ejected from kuwait, and much of his army decimated, zionist americans began highlighting the threats allegedly posed to the jews-only state by its other major adversary.

The israel lobby in america eventually forced the clinton administration into passing punitive economic measures against iran. "Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its supporters in the US for more than a decade." (Jewish Times/Jewish Telegraph Agency, Dec. 6, 2005); "In 1995, former President Bill Clinton, in a speech to the World Jewish Congress, announced that he would not permit Conoco to make a petroleum deal with Iran. Clinton betrayed the interests of the American people." (Paul Sheldon Foote ‘James Petras’ "Israel’s War with Iran"’ pfoote@fullerton.edu December 30, 2005).

1996: A Clean Break

In 1996, two so-called american politicians decided to write a foreign policy paper for a foreign power, the jews-only state – a paper which suggested ways in which that foreign power might increase its independence from the country these politicians were living in and supposed to be serving. Let’s put aside the possibility that this might be treasonous. What is important here is that this paper advocated a jews-only state attack on iran. "In 1996, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, two neo-conservatives later to play an important role in formulation of Bush administration's Pentagon policy in the Middle East, authored a paper for then newly elected Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. That advisory paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm", called on Netanyahu to make a "clean break from the peace process". Perle and Feith also called on Netanyahu to strengthen Israel's defenses against Syria and Iraq, and to go after Iran as the prop of Syria." (F William Engdahl ‘Why Iran's oil bourse can't break the buck’).

1997: The Project for the New American Century

It was not possible to publish ‘A Clean Break’ in america and hope the american government would be persuaded to implement the foreign policies of the jews-only state. So, instead, in 1997, an israeli writer living in america, rewrote the paper from an american perspective in which all the policies that were beneficial to the jews-only state were miraculously transformed, by sheer loquacity, into policies that were beneficial for the united states of america. Although americans might be persuaded to think these policies were policies which boosted american interests they were really policies which served the interests only of the jews-only state and were, in reality, contrary to american interests. The new pamphlet the ‘Project for the New American Century’ proposed the use of american military power to attack iran – supposedly for the benefit of the united states but, in actuality, for the benefit only of the jews-only state. "That strategy (the plans for the attack on Iran) was worked out long ago in documents like the Project for the New American Century .." (Mike Whitney ‘Edging Towards Disaster with Iran’). This zionist manifesto, signed by the leading jewish neocons, was an updated version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. "Fukuyama, after all, was the most prominent intellectual who signed the 1997 "Project for the New American Century," the founding manifesto of neoconservatism drawn up by William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neoconservative movement. The Project for the New American Century aimed to cement for all time America's triumph in the Cold War, by increasing defense spending, challenging regimes that were hostile to U.S. interests and promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Its goal was "an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and values." The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, was the test run of this theory. It was touted as a panacea for every ill of the Middle East. The road to Jerusalem, the neocons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else who stood in Washington's way?" (Rupert Cornwell ‘What the neocons failed to foresee about Iraq’).

2002, President Bush’s Axis of Evil

Despite the help iran gave to america during the invasion of afghanistan, president bush turned his back on iran, "Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bush officials started meeting with Iranian officials. The two countries shared an interest in overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and they took cooperative steps toward that common goal; two decades of mutual hostility began to melt away. Then, in January 2002, President Bush delivered his State of the Union Address - linking Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" - and the Iranians instantly ended all talks." (Fred Kaplan ‘Condi's Baffling New Iran Strategy’).

Ziocons Push Americans to Lay Down Their Lives for the Zionist Cause in Tehran

Even before bush had made any public decision to overthrow saddam’s regime, the jews-only state in palestine, and its zionist allies in america, had mounted a propaganda offensive against the next target on their hit list of enemies. In early 2003, ariel sharon said Iran should be targeted "the day after" the invasion of iraq. "Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’). This theme was quickly taken up by the ziocons in the bush administration, "Remember the braggadocio of Bush’s advisers in March 2003 when they joked that taking Baghdad wouldn’t be enough, nor would taking Damascus, because "real men go to Tehran." (Robert Parry ‘Neocon Amorality’).

Reuel Gerecht, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle:

"Indeed, immediately after the invasion of Iraq, the neocons, led by ex-CIA spook Reuel Gerecht, Iran-Contra alumnus Michael Ledeen, and war profiteer Richard Perle, were arguing that Iran should be targeted next for a regime change. Inside the administration, Rumsfeld and Feith were advancing those ideas, suggesting that unlike Iraq, the transformation of Iran could take place peacefully through diplomatic pressure." (Leon Hadar ‘Target: Tehran?'). The israeli neocons believed the invasion of iraq would be a cakewalk and that america would soon march into iran.

John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security:

Bolton co-operated with his zionist masters to promote a war against iran. "Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea." (Aluf Benn ‘Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria’).

Donald Rumsfeld:

"Speaking to reporters after talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Rumsfeld noted that Iran had been on a list of countries that the United States describes as terrorist states for many years. "One of the gravest concerns the world faces is the nexus between a terrorist state that has weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks," he said. "So it's understandable that nations, not just in this region but throughout the world, are so deeply concerned about what's taking place in Iran." (World worried about Iran nuclear aims: Rumsfeld’).

Rachel Neuwirth:

"Iran is moving rapidly to become a nuclear power. The Iranian mullahs have publicly promised to use nuclear weapons to exterminate Israel even if Israel were to achieve peace with the Palestinians. They also claim that Iran, with 70 million people, could absorb and survive any response from Israel while Israel, with only 5.5 million Jews, is vulnerable to devastating losses if only a few of Iran’s missiles got through." (Rachel Neuwirth ‘Israel May Be Compelled to Pre-empt’).

Charles Krauthammer:

"The comments from Bolton and Rice come within weeks of leading neo-conservative pundits and activists in Washington proclaiming that Iran's nuclear program had to be destroyed, even if waging war was the only way to do it. Influential neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote July 23 column in The Washington Post: "The long awaited revolution (in Iran) is not happening. Which (makes) the question of pre-emptive attack all the more urgent. If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of 'the Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or pre-emptive attack." (Martin Sieff ‘Iran's Very Real War Threat’).

Alan Dershowitz:

"Intelligence reports about Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons aimed at Israel are becoming ominous. Unless diplomatic pressure causes the Iranian mullahs to stop the project, Iran may be ready to deliver nuclear bombs against Israeli civilian targets within a few short years. Some Iranian leaders, such as former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, have made it clear that this is precisely what they intend to do. Killing 5 million Jews would be worth losing 15 million Iranians in a retaliatory Israeli strike, according to Rafsanjani's calculations. Israel, with the help of the United States, should try everything short of military action first: diplomacy, threats, bribery, sabotage, targeted killings of individuals essential to the Iranian nuclear program and other covert actions. But if all else fails, Israel, or the United States, must be allowed under international law to take out the Iranian nuclear threat before it is capable of the genocide for which it is being built." (Alan Dershowitz ‘Amend International Law To Allow Preemptive Strike on Iran’). According to this paranoid zionist, iran should already be in possession of nuclear weapons and on the verge of bombing the jews into oblivion.

Douglas Feith

"Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is the neocon Likudnik who was tasked with cooking up the false "intelligence" that President Bush used to deceive the U.S. public into supporting an illegal invasion of Iraq. With the U.S. military now trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, Feith wants the U.S. to attack Iran." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Dangerous Delusions About Iran’).

Richard Perle:

""If Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, I think we will have no choice but to take decisive action," said ex-Pentagon advisor Richard Perle as he drew loud cheers from the AIPAC loyalists. New York Senator Hillary Clinton, before she introduced Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the crowd, said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable". Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House also chimed in, saying, "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran."" (Joshua Frank ‘Bombing Iran: The Facts Don't Matter’); "Richard Perle, a key architect of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, said on Saturday the West should not make the mistake of waiting too long to use military force if Iran comes close to getting an atomic weapon. "If you want to try to wait until the very last minute, you'd better be very confident of your intelligence because if you're not, you won't know when the last minute is," Perle told Reuters on the sidelines of an annual security conference in Munich. "And so, ironically, one of the lessons of the inadequate intelligence of Iraq is you'd better be careful how long you choose to wait."" (Richard Perle quoted in Reuters ‘Iraq errors show West must act fast on Iran-Perle’)

Jewish Institute for Security Affairs' Dick Cheney:

Cheney is a zionist-owned politician, an israeli collaborator, whose power base in the united states congress, organized by tom delay, had been financed by bribes provided by super-zionist jack abramoff. "Other reports are that the vice president, we might say the "spiritual leader" of the US hawks, Cheney, has been covertly aiding the Benjamin Netanyahu candidacy as new head of the right-wing Likud. Netanyahu is also directly tied to the indicted US Republican money-launderer, Jack Abramoff, during the time Netanyahu was Sharon's finance minister." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’).

In january 2005 cheney gave the jews-only state the go-ahead to attack iran, "One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (Dick Cheney quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005. Michel Chossudovsky ‘Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran’); "In a January 2005 interview with MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning, Vice President Dick Cheney warned that Iran has a "fairly robust nuclear program," charging that the Islamic republic’s prime "objective is the destruction of Israel."

Even more ominously, although an attack on iran has been publicly discussed for many years, cheney was the first to float the idea, in july 2005, that the united states might have to resort to the use of nuclear weapons, "Philip Giraldi's report in the American Conservative that Vice President Cheney has asked the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to draw up concrete, short term contingency plans for an attack on Iran, to involve "a large-scale air assault employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." This would occur in the aftermath of a terror attack on the U.S. which, whatever its origins, would be politically used to justify an attack on Iran, just as the al-Qaeda attack was used to justify the attack on Iraq. Cheney has also declared matter-of-factly that if the U.S. doesn't attack Iran, Israel might do so." (Gary Leupp ‘Goss Builds the Case for Turkey-Based Attacks: Targeting Iran and Syria’)

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations:

"Predictably the biggest Jewish organization in the US, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations immediately echoed the Israeli state line. Malcolm Hoenlan, President of the Conference, lambasted Washington for a "failure of leadership on Iran" and "contracting the issue to Europe" (Forward, December 9, 2005). He went on to attack the Bush Administration for not following Israel's demands by delaying referral of Iran to the UN Security Council for sanction." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’).

Forward:

"The Jewish weekly newspaper, Forward, has reported a number of Israeli attacks on the Bush Administration for not acting more aggressively on behalf of Israel's policy. According to the Forward, "Jerusalem is increasingly concerned that the Bush Administration is not doing enough to block Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (December 9, 2005)." (James Petras ‘Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs’).

AIPAC:

"AIPAC is credited for pushing Congress and the administration towards a number of legislative initiatives hostile to Iran and for placing Tehran's nuclear programme at the top of the international agenda." (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’). "The role of AIPAC, the Conference and other pro-Israeli organizations as transmission belts for Israel's war plans was evident in their November 28, 2005 condemnation of the Bush Administration agreement to give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan under which Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium for non-military purposes under international supervision. AIPAC's rejection of negotiations and demands for an immediate confrontation were based on the specious argument that it would "facilitate Iran's quest for nuclear weapons" - an argument which flies in the face of all known intelligence data which says Iran is at least 3 to 10 years away from even approaching nuclear weaponry. AIPAC's unconditional and uncritical transmission of Israeli demands and criticism is usually clothed in the rhetoric of US interests or security in order to manipulate US policy. AIPAC chastised the Bush regime for endangering US security. By relying on negotiations, AIPAC accused the Bush Administration of "giving Iran yet another chance to manipulate (sic) the international community" and "pose a severe danger to the United States" (Forward, Dec. 9, 2005)."

Leon Hadar:

Hadar is supposedly anti-war and yet here he provides a justification for a military attack on iran – albeit not a full scale invasion, "Doing nothing about Iran would not only demolish what remains of the U.S.-led nuclear arms-control regime, it would also turn the balance of power in Iraq and the Persian Gulf against the United States and create incentives for the Saudis and others to make deals with Tehran. Short of trying to open direct diplomatic channels with Iran (very unlikely), the United States will probably try to increase the diplomatic and military pressure on Iran in the coming months, demonstrating that the Pax Americana project in the Middle East is becoming more expensive. That the central banks of China and other Asian economies are paying for it is probably the most intriguing element in this evolving story." (Leon Hadar ‘US Headed for Confrontation With Iran - But probably not all-out war’).

Daniel Pipes:

Pipes is director of the middle east forum. He helped to set up campus watch to encourage jews living in america to spy on american academics. In the 1970s, his father was the author of ‘Plan B’ which fabricated evidence that the soviet union posed an overwhelming military threat to the united states when no such threat existed, "The most dangerous leaders in modern history are those (like Hitler) equipped with a totalitarian ideology and a mystical belief in their own mission. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fulfills both these criteria, as revealed by his U.N. comments. That combined with his expected nuclear arsenal make him an adversary who must be stopped, and urgently." (Daniel Pipes ‘Iran's Messianic Menace’). This loony paranoid ziocon believes that osama bin laden was hitler, yasser arafat was hitler, and now mahmoud ahmadinejad is hitler. It would be safer to say that pipes sees hitler everywhere under every bed wherever there is resistance to zionist expansion.

Haim Saban and Martin Indyk:

"Kenneth M Pollack, director of research at the Saban Centre on Middle East Policy told a Congressional hearing in September that the US should study the possibility of waging a targeted air campaign aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort. The Saban Centre is funded by a grant from Haim Saban, an Egyptian-born Israeli American billionaire who made his money in the entertainment business. Martin Indyk, a staunchly pro-Israel former US diplomat who once served as US ambassador to Israel, directs it." (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’).

William Kristol:

"More indicative of all is how William Kristol, editor of the neo-conservative publication The Weekly Standard, entitled in his column: "And now Iran." (Emad Mekay ‘Groundhog day in Washington’).

Kenneth R. Timmerman and Carl Limbacher:

"World renowned investigative reporter and terror expert Kenneth R. Timmerman, author of the bestselling book "Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran," and Carl Limbacher, reporter for NewsMax.com, reveal that the US and Israel will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in less than 10 weeks from now." (‘Military Attack against Iran Now Imminent’ On A7radio January 20th 2006).

American Jewish Committee:

.. "the most powerful Israeli lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In an unprecedented action in November, the group publicly criticized the Bush administration for failing to act more aggressively against Iran. The influential American Jewish Committee also announced its own international campaign to impose a global and diplomatic and economic embargo against Iran until it halts its nuclear program." (Jim Lobe ‘The Iranian neo-cons love to hate’).

Reuel Marc Gerecht:

Gerecht works for the american enterprise institute, one of the most important zionist think tanks, "Eventually, assuming the State Department's European strategy falls apart because the Europeans will not play, we will have to make up our minds whether nukes in the hands of Khamenei, Rafsanjani, and Ahmadinejad are "intolerable" or not. If so, then we will have to prepare to bomb." (Reuel Marc Gerecht ‘How to Head Off the Imam Bomb’ The Weekly Standard).

Jeff Jacoby:

"It is not yet unreasonable to hope that Tehran can be forced to back down by a combination of economic sanctions, political isolation, and diplomatic heat. But if a nonmilitary strategy is to have any chance of success, it must be very clear that military action is Plan B - and that United States is quite prepared to wield that ''big stick" if Iran will not abandon its atomic ambitions. Under no circumstances can such enemies be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons - or to doubt that we will do what we must to make sure that they don't." (Jeff Jacoby ‘Don't go wobbly on Iran’). Yet another zionist manipulating the american people into supporting a war against iran which the jews-only state cannot fight. But then why should the jews-only state attack iran when the ziocons living in america seem confident they can get america to do their dirty business for them even if it involves a colossal financial cost and large numbers of american lives?

Mortimer B. Zuckerman:

Zuckerman owns the NY Post and the Atlantic Monthly and was formerly the chair of the conference of presidents of the major jewish american organizations. "Military action, such as bombing the Iranian plants with cruise missiles and strike aircraft, would be justified in the circumstances. But that is hugely difficult politically, and covert action is very difficult operationally. Still, the risks may have to be taken because the alternative is so awful. There may now be a window of opportunity for effective preventive action, but this window is more likely to be measured in months than years." (Mortimer B. Zuckerman ‘Moscow's Mad Gamble’). This paranoid zionist who’s trying to stir up world war three believes, "Within a very few years, in all likelihood, Iran will be able to launch nuclear missiles." This view is a total fabrication. But, this is the propaganda being pumped out by the zionist dominated ruling classes in america, britain, and palestine.

"Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said Tehran had to be dissuaded by "whatever means are necessary" from acquiring nuclear arms, but added the West was "giving every chance for diplomacy to work." Speaking two days after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted to report Tehran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear work, Joseph gave a worrying assessment of Iran's nuclear progress. "I would say that Iran does have the capability to develop nuclear weapons and the delivery means for those weapons," Joseph told a news conference at the Foreign Press Center here. He went a step further than President George W. Bush, who said in a statement hailing the IAEA action Saturday that Iran was "continuing to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons." He sidestepped questions on the use of force yet said, "No options are off the table. We cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, but we are giving every chance for diplomacy to work. What is necessary to stop Iran is a firm indication that the international community ... will take whatever measures are necessary to convince Iran that it is in its interest to forego a nuclear weapons capability." ('Iran has the Ability to develop a Nuclear Weapon: US Official’). Joseph was one of the ziocon liars, a traitor to america, who thought nothing about deceiving the american public into believing that saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. "Not a high-profile hardliner like Bolton or Feith, Joseph successfully avoided the public limelight-that is until the scandal of the 16 words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons development program. According to president, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The State of the Union Address, which laid out the administration's case for a preemptive invasion of Iraq, used unconfirmed intelligence reports about Iraq's WMD programs. Press reports and congressional testimony by CIA officials later revealed that the CIA had vigorously protested the inclusion of any assertion that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons since their intelligence would not support such a conclusion. Alan Foley, the CIA's top expert on weapons of mass destruction, told Congress that Robert Joseph repeatedly pressed the CIA to back the inclusion in Bush's speech of a statement about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger. Following these revelations about the inclusion of erroneous and disputed intelligence estimates in this major speech that readied the U.S. public for war against Iraq, Joseph said he did not recall Foley's raising concerns about the credibility of the information to be included in the speech." (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement'). Joseph’s reward for lying and pushing america into a war against iraq which has incurred vast economic costs and the loss of over four thousand american lives, was promotion, "The top U.S. government official in charge of arms control advocates the offensive use of nuclear weapons and has deep roots in the neoconservative political camp . Moving into John Bolton's old job, Robert G. Joseph is the right-wing's advance man for counterproliferation as the conceptual core of a new U.S. military policy. Within the administration, he leads a band of counterproliferationists who - working closely with such militarist policy institutes as the National Institute for Public Policy and the Center for Security Policy - have placed preemptive attacks and weapons of mass destruction at the center of U.S. national security strategy. Joseph replaced John Bolton at the State Department as the new undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs. Like the controversial Bolton, Joseph has established a reputation for breaking or undermining arms control treaties, rather than supporting or strengthening international arms control. Joseph, too, has long believed that U.S. military strategy should be more offensive than defensive." (Tom Barry ‘Meet John Bolton's Replacement'). Joseph is one of the many israelis who have been drafted into the bush administration to promote the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. "Although not self-identified as a neoconservative, Joseph moves in the same circles as other military strategists such as the CSP's Frank Gaffney, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz. In a Washington Post article (May 2, 2002), "Who's Pulling the Foreign Policy Strings," Dana Milbank wrote: "The vice president sometimes stays neutral but his sympathies undoubtedly are with the Perle crowd. Cheney deputies Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Eric Edelman relay neoconservative views to Rice at the National Security Council. At the NSC, they have a sympathetic audience in Elliott Abrams, Robert Joseph, Wayne Downing, and Zalmay Khalilzad."

Wall Street Journal:

"Today, the editorial page is a fount of neoconservative war propaganda. All intelligence has vanished. Consider the "Review & Outlook" of Feb. 3, which declares Iran to be "an intolerable threat." Iran is portrayed as a threat because the country's new president has used threatening rhetoric against Israel. But, of course, Bush and Israel are constantly using threatening rhetoric against Iran. To avoid being regarded as a wimp by his countrymen and by the Muslim world, the new Iranian president has to answer back. It doesn't occur to the editorialists that Iranians might see the nuclear weapons of Israel and the U.S. as intolerable threats." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘How Conservatives Went Crazy’).

Max Boot and Nicholas Goldberg:

"Max Boot just wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "In sum, a terrorist-sponsoring state led by an apocalyptic lunatic will soon have the ability to incinerate Tel Aviv or New York," which "leaves only one serious option – air strikes by Israel or the U.S." Nicholas Goldberg, who edits the Times' opinion page, studiously avoids publishing any alternative viewpoints. A similar approach is taken by the rest of the mainstream media in the U.S. and Western Europe. Is it surprising that a few days after these two opinion pieces were published the Los Angeles Times found that 57 percent of the U.S. public backs a military strike on Iran?" (Jorge Hirsch ‘America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss’).

Joe Lieberman:

"Nevertheless, Dick Cheney himself last year ordered a study of a plan for an attack on Iran -and leading politicians are beating the war drums, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.)." (Lee Sustar ‘Target: Iran’).

Zionist owned american media in general:

"The media has assumed its traditional role of fanning the flames for war by providing ample space for the spurious allegations of administration officials, right-wing pundits, and disgruntled Iranian exiles, while carefully omitting the relevant facts in Iran's defense. As always, the New York Times has spearheaded the propaganda war with an article by Richard Bernstein and Steven Weisman which lays out the sketchy case against Iran. In the first paragraph the Bernstein-Weisman combo suggest that Iran has restarted "research that could give it technology to create nuclear weapons."" (Mike Whitney ‘The Bombs of March. Countdown to War with Iran?').

The same commentators who manipulated america into a war against iraq are now manipulating america into a war against iran, "Besides convincing the public that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, a critical task of the neo-cons was to convince the American public that there was a link between Al Queda and Saddam. Their colleagues among the nation's major syndicated columnists such as Safire, Will, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Jeff Jacoby, and Paul Greenberg were all too willing accomplices. By the time, the U.S. launched its invasion, more than half of the public was convinced that Saddam had been behind the attacks." (Jeffrey Blankfort ‘A War for Israel’).

John Bolton, as US ambassador to the UN:

"Significantly, the most hawkish of hawks had to be the US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. In a speech, not by accident, at the annual convention of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel US lobby, he said Iran's nuclear program could be "taken out"." (Pepe Escobar ‘The old lovers' nuclear tango’).

Bush professes to fight proxy zionist war:

Bush is making it clear that he is pushing america into a war against iran for the sake of the jews-only state – this incidentally will not be america’s first proxy zionist war. "What President George W. Bush, Fox News, and the Washington Times were saying about Iraq three years ago they are now saying about Iran. After Saturday's vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran's suspicious nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, the president wasted no time in warning, "The world will not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." More recently, in the case of Iran, President Bush has been unabashed in naming Israel as the most probable target of any Iranian nuclear weapons. He has also created a rhetorical lash-up of the U.S. and Israel, referring three times in the past two weeks to Israel as an "ally" of the U.S., as if to condition Americans to the notion that the U.S. is required to join Israel in any confrontation with Iran. For example, on Feb. 1 the president told the press, "Israel is a solid ally of the United States; we will rise to Israel's defense if need be." Asked if he meant the U.S. would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush replied with a startlingly open-ended commitment, "You bet, we'll defend Israel."" (Ray McGovern `Juggernaut Gathering Momentum: Next Stop, Iran’). F william engdahl raises the pertinent issue as regards america’s national interests as opposed to the interests of the jews-only state in palestine, "It is useful to keep in mind that even were Iran to possess nuclear missiles, the strike range would not reach the territory of the US. Israel would be the closest potential target. A US preemptive nuclear strike to defend Israel would raise the issue of what the military agreements between Tel Aviv and Washington actually encompass, a subject neither the Bush administration nor its predecessors have seen fit to inform the American public about." (F William Engdahl ‘A high-risk game of nuclear chicken’).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and iraq-war.ru as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!"

About Me

All material published for educational purposes under Fair Use Doctrine.
Warning: Some commentaries may include profanity. I offer my apologies in advance for those who may be offended by the harsh language in response to outrageous lies.